Skip to main content

About your Search

20121128
20121206
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
have no evidence that the iranian claims you cite are true. i'd refer you to the pentagon's comments this morning about the type of uav, but, again, no evidence that the claims are true. >> how do you view, though, the fact they have shot some drone -- >> again, we have no evidence to hear the claims are true. i'm not going to comment on something about which we have no evidence in its truthfulness. yes? >> jay, thanks. i want to go back to what the president asked in the interview with bloomberg. during the negotiations with speaker boehner, a year ago, he was willing to consider increasing the eligibility age for medicare recipients and slowing benefits for entitlements, and he said he was willing to look at anything that strengthens our system. can you clarify, are those prams that could strengthen the system, is that what he was signaling? >> i will say a couple things that build on and echo what the president said today and in the past. we put forward substantial and specific savings in entitlement programs. both health care entightmentments, and, you know, non-health care manda
for the pentagon and fluctuations in global energy prices can have dramatic, dramatic effects on defense spending. for every $10 increase in a barrel of oil it costs the american military annually an extra $1.3 billion. recognizing the potential instability that d.o.d.'s current energy needs can cause, military experts from across the various branches of the armed services have begun looking at ways to cut energy use and find energy alternative. now, i continued to hear all of this discussion about how this is somehow a green agenda and it's a suber havesive plot and it's being forced on a resistant president. and i just want to take a minute or two, mr. president, and say i don't think anything could be further from the truth and just wanted to describe for a moment why i feel that way. first, those who oppose defense energy initiatives often argue in today's fiscal environment, the country can't afford to waste money on energy programs when it's necessary to provide for our nation's security. i don't believe, mr. president, it is an either/or proposition, because my view is that an investment i
at the pentagon before heading back to the baltimore region alternating working in private practice and working in the state's attorney general's office, while continuing to serve as an active duty u.s. army j.a.g. corps officer with occasional stints in the pentagon. in 1997, judge grimm was elected a magistrate judge by the judges of the u.s. district court for the district of maryland and in 2006 became the chief u.s. magistrate judge in baltimore. in 2009, chief justice john roberts appointed judge grimm to serve as a member of the advisory committee for the federal rules of civil procedure, and in 2010, he was designated as chair of the civil rules committee discovery subcommittee. i mention that because it's evident from the chief judge's appointment that judge grimm is a nationally recognized expert on cutting edge issues of law and technology. he has written numerous authoritative opinions, books and articles on the subject of evidence, civil procedure and trial advocacy. he also continues to inspire the next generation of lawyers by teaching classes at both of our law schools, and on s
savings in the pentagon i think is not a fair assessment. at simpson-bowles said and others, there are savings to be had there that would not compromise our national security. i want to also add simpson-bowles approach establish firewalls in the outer years to delay the temptation to go back into the nondefense accounts when too much political pressure keeps you out of defense spending. so i would hope that in a long-term agreement would include that. on the nondefense side, i still think there's a savings to be found. i give you a couple illustrations of those that i think might be of some value to us. first, hats off to debbie stabenow and pat roberts putting together a far build that safest $23 billion over the next 10 years. that's something that hits my state directly, but i think they did it thoughtful, bipartisan job of saving money toward deficit reduction. there are other areas where savings can be found as well. and i think that we need to look at those honestly. let me kill you, i think the infrastructure is one area where we we should consider as simpson-bowles d
in the past that it defies the pentagon and the size american debt that we're too big to fail. deadhorse lake bigger problem than us. i be interested when you're anything about policy do you look at that as a source of leverage or does it strain american options tremendous a? >> steve, very simply, the u.s. situation with respect to our deficit and debt is a national security liability. we need our senior leadership. we need a senior leadership to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so. we have a requirement to do so. at the foundation of national power is ultimately economic comment and in terms of global influence, in terms of the ability to support a military, the economic is foundation. and we have i think the united states, both an opportunity to require it to get our house in order, and i believe that our 100 senators and members of the house will step up on this and sufficient majority in the coming months. >> how do you look at your surplus of the u.s.? does that say we have america under our control? >> we are one of the closest allies of the united states. so of course our posi
by the congressional defense committees. but like many laws, the pentagon is kind of looking around for loopholes. the air force has been pretty adept at identifying them, even if they might not actually be there. but there are some worthy amendments that i have submitted that would close the loopholes. these are contained in 10u.s.c. 993 and 10 u.s.c.2687. one of the more substantial loopholes contained in 10 u.s.c. 2687 would seem to allow the department of defense to characterize a reduction in civilian personnel as a reduction in force rather than reduction in realignment. that loophole if indeed it does exist i think needs to be closed. let me also note the difficulties we have had in obtaining from the air force information just asking for specific information has been a struggle these past several months. you ask the air force a question, and you tend to get a heavily vetted and not terribly specific answer. ask for documents explaining the deliberative process of the air force, and maybe you get one document months after you've asked for it, and again the document doesn't explain very muc
of the executive branch; i spent four years in the pentagon in the reagan administration -- they say that they have consulted and the definition of a consultation should be the secretary of state calling the chairman of the foreign relations committee or the secretary of defense calling the chairman of the armed services committee or coming over for a meeting. that is not the level of discussion and involvement that the united states congress should have when we are talking about long-term commitments with countries such as afghanistan and iraq. so this amendment is not draconian. it is very sensible. it basically says that in the situation where we have entered into this proposed relationship with afghanistan, that the key committees over here in the united states congress should have 30 days to review the documents before they are put into play. there's no great urgency in terms of when these documents are implemented, and it's the same courtesy -- actually, iter- actually, it's not even as far as what the afgha afghani parlit is going to be able to do on the other side. i commend the senator fro
am confident that the pentagon and the larger federal government can more efficiently manage its spectrum holdings and make available additional spectrum to create jobs. i hope we can work this out and have it included as part of the defense authorization bill. i certainly believe it's an amendment that's important with regard to the issue that i mentioned and that is the reallocation, relocation of spectrum in this country to allow for multiple uses, obviously important private and commercial uses out there and enormous demand, that demand is is adding significantly to our economy and creating jobs for literally thousands and millions of americans. madam president, with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask further proceedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent we proceed to the gillibrand amendment and that the time be 20 minutes
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8